= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I sometimes fail to get around to sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll.
I find it is the downsides of those things that I generally blame for not doing them, though I do own a Bon Jovi CD.
In response to
[LINK] AI-boxing Is News, Somehow
No magic powers were mentioned on this site. Maybe powers virtually indistinguishable from magic powers. But that is something different.
…powers such as precognition (knowledge of the future), telepathy or psychokinesis…
Sounds like a description of magic to me. They could have written it differently if they'd wanted to evoke the impression of super-advanced technologies.
The Intelligent Design theorists don't seem to understand that (1) their effort to describe biological structures in strictly engineering terms capitulates to what materialists have said for generations, namely, that life operates according to nonspooky mechanical principles; and (2) their influence in propagandizing the view of the human body as a machine will probably help to erode resistance to proposals for re-engineering human biology.
In other words, the Intelligent Design idea has the unintentional effect of desacralizing the human body.
I hope that happens quick. There are systems in my body that need some re-engineering, lest I die even sooner than the average Englishman.
In response to
[SEQ RERUN] Recognizing Intelligence
Note: cheesecake may be presented as an alien preference, but do NOT use it as an UFAI preference. The idea of tiling the universe with cheesecake is too attractive.
The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for making cheesecake.
In response to
[SEQ RERUN] Recognizing Intelligence
Several comments on the original thread seem to be making a comparison between "I found a complicated machine-thing, something must have made it" and the classic anti-evolution "This looks complicated, therefore God"
I can't quite see how they can leap from one to the other.
As presented, the 'class' involved is 'the class of facts which fits the stated criteria'. So, the only true facts which Omega is entitled to present to you are those which are demonstrably true, which are not misleading as specified, which Omega can find evidence to prove to you, and which you could verify yourself with a month's work. The only falsehoods Omega can inflict upon you are those which are demonstrably false (a simple test would show they are false), which you do not currently believe, and which you would disbelieve if presented openly.
Those are fairly weak classes, so Omega has a lot of room to work with.
So, a choice between the worst possible thing a superintelligence can do to you by teaching you an easily-verifiable truth and the most wonderful possible thing by having you believe an untruth. That ought to be an easy choice, except maybe when there's no Omega and people are tempted to signal about how attached to the truth they are, or something.
In response to
Problem of Optimal False Information
I am worried about "a belief/fact in its class" the class chosen could have an extreme effect on the outcome.
In response to
A presentation about Cox's Theorem made for my English class
The link goes to a file called "cox_presentation.odp", which I can't do anything with. :(
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Has there been any evolution in either of their positions since 2008, or is that the latest we have?
edit Credit to XiXiDu to sending me this OB link, which contains in the comments this YouTube video of a Hanson-Yudkowsky AI debate in 2011. Boiling it down to one sentence I'd say it amounts to Hanson thinking that a singleton Foom is a lot less likely than Yudkowsky thinks.
Is that more or less what it was in 2008?